[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:08:45 -0700
> So you think he would have said that there is no point in ever using a term
> like "subjective experience" to differentiate experiences we have that can
> be shared from those that can't?
>
Careful: subjective experience is easily shared so I'm not sure who's
being sloppy here, maybe one of the other interlocutors.
> Can you offer something in support of WHY you think as you do, either some
> argument or some direct quotes from him where he said as much?
>
Very clearly, without my finding that one obscure quote I mentioned
(just bought Philosophical Grammar in hopes of finding it), we can say
this: there is no pattern or profile in the brain, of neuronic
events, corresponding to what we'd call "understanding how to continue
a number series".
Why I'd say this is clear is LW goes out of his way, many times, to
disabuse us of any notion that "understanding" is any singular mental
process, and I'm talking about ordinary usage of the word, not some
"special meaning". When I understand what to do, I need not have some
specific experience. Maybe I do, maybe I don't, but it's not integral
to the meaning of understanding that some feeling or occult movement
be present or in the works. That's simply grammatically true. Read a
bunch of English novels if you don't believe me.
Conclusion: anyone going looking in the brain for "that firing
pattern characteristic of the 'understanding' process" has no
appreciation for Wittgenstein's contribution whatsoever.
Kirby
> SWM
Other related posts:
